> I believe that publishing the style guide as RFC is exactly the right thing to do. When we can't express the RFC style as RFC, we have a problem.
Yes, we have a problem; that's what this proposal is about. The problem is that the RFC publication process is too heavy-weight for making small changes to non-protocol documents that need to be updated a few times a year when errors are found or additional guidance becomes obvious.
> With respect to updates: RFCs can be revised. There's no reason why the situation needs to be as bad as before :-).
RFCs can be revised, but it takes unnecessary effort to do so.
On Mar 12, 2014, at 1:57 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke at gmx.de> wrote:
> The RFC Style doesn't change quickly at all. So there should be no reason to have to look into two places.
If you want to disagree with Heather and Sandy, where they say the opposite in the current draft, that's fine, but I tend to trust them on these types of issues.
> There is a difference between updating an RFC and a Web Page, but I believe it's not as big as you make it.
We simply disagree here.
> The advantage of having an RFC and updating it through the usual ID process is that we get the same benefits as for regular RFCs, namely review.
Heather can ask for review on this list before she makes changes to the web page. In fact, I would hope she would. But then once there is agreement or, more likely, a big shrug, it takes nearly no effort to make the change available to all potential RFC authors.
--Paul Hoffman